CHL's and Obama


PDA






Skittlesman7062
September 29, 2008, 10:35 AM
Hey All,

I dont know if this is the right forum to be posting under, so if it needs to be moved, i apologize. :)

Given Obama's stance on CHL's (he is against them, for those who dont know) How focused do you think he will be on getting them revoked nationwide? Do you think he will be able to end the practice or will he simply pass a law making all permits invalid at the federal level? If you are a CHL holder, what do you think your course of action will be if Obama does succeed in getting elected (god forbid) and succeeds in invalidating CHL permits?

I just like to be more informed on the feelings of my THR brothers and sisters!

Thanks All!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "CHL's and Obama" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sistema1927
September 29, 2008, 10:43 AM
I don't think that the President, any President, can eliminate CHL with an executive order. This isn't to say that a President can't make things bad, very bad, but not in this area.

You will be told that this discussion belongs in APS (see the upper right hand corner). IBTL.

ilbob
September 29, 2008, 10:48 AM
I am not sure it belongs at APS, but the discussion will almost certainly turn political if care is not taken.

I don't see what constitutional authority there would be for the federal government to invalidate CC permits, either by congressional or executive action.

I do think the congress has the power to nullify the need for them, if it so desired. The 14th amendment clearly gives congress the power to determine that VT style carry should be the law of the land.

OTOH, since maybe a quarter of federal government spending is grossly unconstitutional, and another quarter is suspect, just being unconstitutional is no guarantee.

Flame Red
September 29, 2008, 10:56 AM
I don't see what constitutional authority there would be for the federal government to invalidate CC permits, either by congressional or executive action.


Anymore than they have the constitutional right to make something fall under NFA or issue executive orders to ban newly manufactured full auto to be no longer registered under their unconstitutional NFA law? Oh please, they can do anything they want because all the sheeple let them.

jackstinson
September 29, 2008, 10:59 AM
Considering the current state of the country, the plunging economy, the wars in the middle East, and the plethora of pressing major issues; Does anyone seriously think that concealed carry will be a priority on the either candidates mind?

buzz_knox
September 29, 2008, 11:05 AM
Considering the current state of the country, the plunging economy, the wars in the middle East, and the plethora of pressing major issues; Does anyone seriously think that concealed carry will be a priority on the either candidates mind?

They probably said the same thing right before passage of the NFA in 1934.

During economic troubles, one has to be seen as doing something. Since the economic issues will preclude some of the massive spending plans certain candidates have called for, guns will be an easy target, especially as there are many liberal groups who are more concerned with banning guns than saving the nation.

As for the underlying question, there are a host of things an anti-gun administration could do to make CHLs harder to get or more inconvenient. Tying federal dollars to making it harder to get CHLs (i.e. insuring that requirements are "uniform" would work), precluding carrying a loaded weapon in interstate commerce (i.e. across state lines) notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, etc. The same techniques that mandated a 55 MPH speed limit, drinking age restrictions, and abuses of the Commerce Clause can work here.

texfed
September 29, 2008, 11:13 AM
Obama will swing any way the older party members in congress want him to. He really doesn't have a clue personally! So if you want to get down to brass tacks....If we have a Democratic majority in the house and senate and he's President.......we are screwed!

NWGunner
September 29, 2008, 11:22 AM
I seem to recall a certain President banning the sale and import of certain weapons from certain countries in the early 90's through an executive order. Think 1989: [18 USC 925(d)(3)] and 1990: [18 922(r)].

To think that it isn't possible goes against historical precedent. I could easily see in a situation where martial law has been declared, suspension of the right to carry concealed. This would be tough to enforce, but very easy to make illegal.

Would there be backlash and protest from all the sovereign states that comprise our country? Sure. On the other hand, God forbid, if we had some tragic event surrounding guns and CCW, the popular sentiment may be for such a ban.

Like others, I use the 2a as a litmus test for a candidate. First, they must demonstrate through their past voting record and public policy that they support my 2nd amendment rights (or at least don't seek to curtail them in any way). If they can't pass muster, they don't get my vote.

Senator Obama's record is very clear on this issue. While he may have had a change of heart after the heller decision, his selection of a running mate who also happens to support a wide array of gun control should be factored in.

everallm
September 29, 2008, 11:25 AM
They probably said the same thing right before passage of the NFA in 1934.

Buzz_knox

This isn't 1934 anymore, the political classes are, whether they like it or not, far more beholden and vastly more transparent to the electorate and the lobbyists than then.

In these days the politicals are tracked, reviewed, second guessed, contacted, emailed, pressured, blogged and written about in real time.

It can lead to knee-jerk politics where there is the "instant gratification" law pushed through.

It also means that if a cause is either out of favour or likely to make a pol "look" bad with their constituents they will take a loud stance but not spend any political capital. Remember, the intent of a politician is to be re-elected and that comes before anything else.

Sponsor and pass a bill that strips folk of their CCW/CHL....There goes most of the battleground states at both the congressional and Senate level.

Federal isn't the issue it's incrementalism at the individual state level we need to be careful about.

ZeSpectre
September 29, 2008, 11:30 AM
Considering the current state of the country, the plunging economy, the wars in the middle East, and the plethora of pressing major issues; Does anyone seriously think that concealed carry will be a priority on the either candidates mind?

Well, if things fall too much further and the bottom tier of folks get desperate (and believe it, some of them are right there at the line) the importance of CHL and personal protection may just suddenly gain a spotlight.

belus
September 29, 2008, 11:34 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry"

True: In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he now holds, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. The Chicago Tribune, which queried the candidates on several issues, reported:

Chicago Tribune (Feb. 20 2004): Obama ... backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.

"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.

More recently, Obama was quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in an article on April 2, 2008, saying "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. ... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

I doubt he'll waste his time attempting it. I don't think the representatives of the 41 states who have shall issue (plus Vermont and Alaska) will want to give up home control.

mp510
September 29, 2008, 11:40 AM
It would be very difficult for the federal government regulate weapons carrying, because it is a state issue. They may be able to regulate transporting or carrying weapons accross state lines, but within the individual states would be difficult. Even the federal regulation on switchblades only covers interstate commerce (importing/selling across state lines/ transporting across state lines). There would also be potential issues under Lopez regarding enforcement, if they did pass such legislation and expected the states to enforce it.

NWGunner
September 29, 2008, 11:43 AM
My guess would be that it is more important to elect state and local officials that are 2a friendly, given that most legislation, if not all, comes from the state level. FWIW, I'm not sure that the feds are even contacted during the application process as most states have their own specific criteria for issuance.

Still though, I'm unconvinced that the sphere of influence at the federal level has been properly tested and restricted.

Think of it this way, when the President and the congressional majorities both belong to the same party, getting legislative support is almost automatic. Plus, say something like banning CCW does happen, if the congress doesn't contest it (because their party doesn't support it as part of their platform) what is our recourse?

The separation of powers and system of checks and balances put in place by our country's founders is more or less our last line of formal defense.

IMHO, I am more concerned with AWB II than I am with a blanket ban of CCW at the federal level.

Look on the bright side: we've had law on the books since the 70's to go metric with all of our roadsigns and official measures, but that hasn't "taken" either.

Could carrying without a permit be considered civil disobedience if such a ban takes hold?

ImARugerFan
September 29, 2008, 11:47 AM
The only thing the president will do in regards to this is appoint judges, and potentially veto what congress passes. There will be no effect on carry permits regardless of who wins. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll be stuck with either McCain or Obama :(

RPCVYemen
September 29, 2008, 12:04 PM
Given Obama's stance on CHL's (he is against them, for those who dont know) How focused do you think he will be on getting them revoked nationwide?

Maybe you missed the fact that the Dems regained control of the Senate by electing pro-gun Democrats. But the Democratic leadership did not miss that fact. :)

I expect a lot of hand wringing with no action from the gun control advocates to be the gun control policy of the Dems for some time to come - Howard Dean figured out how to win, and both parties like winnnig.

Mike

buzz_knox
September 29, 2008, 12:10 PM
Maybe you missed the fact that the Dems regained control of the Senate by electing pro-gun Democrats. But the Democratic leadership did not miss that fact.


Being progun must explain why renewing the AWB is one of the planks of the Dem platform, right?

GEM
September 29, 2008, 12:15 PM
Buzz - to talk theoretical - both parties have nutty platform planks for the hard core base about which they do little.

Bush and platformrambled about flag burning ban amendments, gay marriage ban amendments and abortion ban amendments - but little was done.

The point being that the Dems might have these plank but do nothing about it due to practical politics.

Of course, that is the risk. If either party's nutballs got control - they would try to institute their antifreedom planks. Of course, if you are own of the hard case base nutballs of either party - you will happily infringe on basic rights - gun control or crotch control - take your choice.

buzz_knox
September 29, 2008, 12:23 PM
The point being that the Dems might have these plank but do nothing about it due to practical politics.

Practical politics states that Obama will be able to achieve little to nothing substantive given the economic crunch. Iraq is resolving itself, and even the libs have a tendency to support Afghanistan. So, he will have to placate his liberal base with something, and that something is likely to be "common sense" gun control.

That has the added benefit of giving Soros something for his money, and providing increased job security for federal employees in troubled economic times (after all, that's one of the reasons the NFA was enacted in the Depression).

Tyris
September 29, 2008, 12:36 PM
The point being that the Dems might have these plank but do nothing about it due to practical politics.

If by "do nothing" you mean push legislation to that effect, I agree.

Yes, this explains HR1022 completely.

-T

Coronach
September 29, 2008, 12:43 PM
Off topic for THR

If you enjoyed reading about "CHL's and Obama" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!